Pages

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Alpha Hate

If the opposite of love isn't hatred but indifference, then it's clear that apex dwelling alphas hate hate hate beta and lower men just like women do, albeit for different reasons:
I think we exaggerate the degree to which the sexes are mired in conflict. As Henry Kissinger once said, “Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There’s too much fraternizing with the enemy.” We men want our wives and daughters to encounter opportunity in the workplace, not sexual harassment; women want their husbands and sons to be in the executive suite, not jail. Nearly all of us root for fairness, not for our own sex.

The truth is that we men have typically benefited as women have gained greater equality. Those men who have lost their jobs in the recession are now more likely to have a wife who still has a job and can keep up the mortgage payments. And women have been particularly prominent in the social sector, devising new programs for the mostly male ranks of the jobless or homeless.

So forget about gender war and zero-sum games. Odds are that we men will find a way to hold our own, with the help of women. And we’ll benefit as smart and talented women belatedly have the opportunity to deploy their skills on behalf of all of humanity — including those of us with Y chromosomes
Kristof's Pollyanna-ish take on the battle of the sexes displays either an astounding ignorance of the facts or blatant self-deception in the face of those facts. Either way, his missive suggests that alpha men like him aren't concerned with the fate of their brothers because they simply do not perceive a problem.

Beta and lower men may as well be invisible to men like Kristof, except for the losers that deserve to be in jail. This is because alphas like Kristof assume that all men have it just like they do...comfy existences with plenty of female attention, and conclude that being a guy in this day and age isn't so bad. It's classic projection, and a convenient way of defining into oblivion the problems that accompany the widespread disenfranchisement of lower-strata men.

The truth of the matter is that much of women's gains have come at the direct expense of beta and lower men, particularly in the social and legal spheres, where gender parity has given way to government-enforced feminine advantage. Women see no reason to help their y-chromo bretheren, especially when they still see men as the oppressor class holding them down--ironically when beta men's labors and alpha-granted privilege prop them up--and will not cotton well to the idea that they will now have to support 'slacker men'.

But not to worry. In the Darwinian battle for the fittest societies, those societies that reproduce, those that best harness the energies of its men are those that endure. And the alpha male-led matriarchal construct that Western society has devolved to is clearly inferior to other, more vigorous societies. While I won't hazard a guess as to how long the present social construct will limp along, it is clear to me that its days are numbered, both socially and economically.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

States 'In The Red'


Click here to view the interactive flash object from the WSJ. I note with some satisfaction that the states that didn't spend like drunken sailors when times were good are doing the best now. I note also that a good portion of this is because the energy market is going gangbusters right now, and the energy sector dominates the economies of the four states that are still in the black.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Set Free at Last

I've been talking about freedom a lot here at EW lately. And that is because I realize more and more each day that freedom is so precious and that we Americans take freedom so much for granted.  We are habituated to trade freedom for chains in so many areas that we think it normal to be in bondage.

Take money, for instance. I opined some time ago about the many and manifest evils of usury banking (which I call 'Jewish' banking, to contrast it with its Islamic alternative which eschews the charging of interest), while both Dave Ramsey and the Bible makes explicitly clear God's warning about debt

The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender

Well, today, I wanted to announce my family's freedom from the yoke of debt. For most of my adult life I--I say "I" here a lot because most of the last decade I have been single/divorced, and it is during this time where I accrued most of my debt--have owed money to somebody or something. For the first time in 11 years, I don't have a car payment or house payment or owed several tens of thousands in attorney's fees. During this period, I have paid out just shy of $11,000 in interest to usurious banksters, money that could have been better used to save for a future home, invest in the future, or spend on my/our current wants.

My family and I are off the hamster wheel at last. We intend to remain so, and would like to encourage each of you to also know the peace of not being a slave to your possessions and having the spiritual and mental security that comes from knowing that economic dislocation isn't an immediate emergency and that, whatever comes our way via the Great Depression II, we will survive.

I'll close this post with the following you tube vid from the Christian rock band Casting Crowns. It well captures the relief that comes from being freed through obedience.







Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Tuesday Tomfoolery

And here I thought boot sandals were a joke:



Sorry for the low picture quality--indoors taken with a camera phone on the sly--but I just had to pass along how someone actually dared to commit this fashion crime in public.

Monday, July 19, 2010

Never Satisfied

Feminist women, which encompasses, oh, say, about 80% of the female population I reckon, wanted to be as loose and as seemingly carefree as the alpha men they idealized.  Problem was that those men constituted about 10% of the male population, yet they projected the behavior and power and autonomy of alpha males onto the whole of the male population...and concluded that Men Had It Better because a certain few of them were sexy, powerful, in charge, and they were attractive.  In other words, an operational definition of the apex fallacy.

But no matter, feminist women wanted to be like them and be with them, footloose and fancy-free, as promiscuous as they wanna be, and rightly saw that this thing called patriarchy kept them from doing so in a socially approved manner. So patriarchy had to go, and it did.

Enter free love. And now the college hook-up. All of a sudden, women feel used, dirty. Isn't this what they wanted? Apparently not...they longed for a man who would worship them, put them on a pedestal, treat them like a lady. You know, like their emo-porn romance novellas said they should. Not just be notches on some man's gun belt.

But what feminists didn't realize at the time they took patriarchy out back and shot it is that patriarchy, among other things, lassoed men into socially constructive behavior and dutiful service of society as a whole. And women in particular. Freed from patriarchy, men were free to throw off the yoke of duty and other-focused behavior and could pursue their own self interests full-tilt. Which quite a few dudes did, and found that a world without patriarchy--the world that women all yelled and screamed and marched and burnt bras for--suited them just fine. And they thought that this world was the one that women wanted.

Except apparently it is not what they wanted.

What women really wanted all along was to get married. At least for a little while, until something/someone better comes along. Silly lasses, they coulda fooled me with all their talk about how marriage was slavery and prison and married sex was rape.  And those that were married seemed hell-bent on trading in their hapless no-good beta and delta men for cash and prizes. All legal-like of course.

Unfortunately, now two of the three social forces that propelled men and women together into the institution of marriage--religious stricture and economic economies of scale--had been obliterated, even reversed. Only one remained, and women were rapidly finding that the urge to merge was a necessary but insufficient reason for men to seek to settle down with them into Marriage 2.0, an institution that seems only to serve one function and one function only: to require one or more men to be economically committed to a woman. For life. Even if he/they are not married to her any longer.  Yes, Marriage 2.0 seems to be hand-crafted to get women's hands in men's bankbooks and little more.

Lacking any better reasons to get together other than Tab A into Slot B, dialogue between boyfriends and girlfriends becomes woefully short:
Woman: “All you want is sex!”

Man: “Uh…what else have you got?” or “So what?”

--*--

[Woman: "Let's get married!"]

Man: “Marriage? Why? Would sex be better? Would food taste better? I don’t get it” or, “Marriage doesn’t make sense. Do you want to eat in the same restaurant all your life?”
Having distilled themselves down to a commodity, women are realizing that being treated as one is no fun. Only now women are getting a taste of their own medicine. I just wish women would realize that men don't want to be commodified either; who wants to be treated as a means to an end, really?

Now I can't necessarily blame women for not particularly cottoning to this sorry state of affairs, except insofar that it was (a) what they said they wanted, and (b) perfectly foreseeable.  Having destroyed any reason whatsoever for men to pledge his time, energy, his fortunes, and his very life to a woman and her children--and make no mistake, they are her children in her eyes and that of the law's--we as a society shouldn't be surprised if men demur in favor of XBoxes and porn sites.

The thing that surprises me is how many men still do marry, despite all the disadvantages. I suppose it is a triumph of hope over reason, or at least men doing what they know to be right even though they know they have even odds of it ending badly for them. Perhaps it is these men who provide the visual example of what women could have if they changed their behavior, the catalyst for women to not be satisfied with the world they have wrought.

So many feminist women hate on patriarchy, without ever actually seeing one or living in one.  So they promote the matriarchal social model of the savanna, apparently ignorant that low female sexual value and lack of male commitment immediately follow, and how unhappy they will be with that state of affairs.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

America The Dependent

A real good reason for refusing government largesse is simply to avoid the slavery that comes with it. You see, when one refuses government 'help', you keep government from getting its hooks into you or having any influence over your decision-making process. Just ask individual state governors and grasp how much their autonomy is constrained by their acceptance of Federal monies...how many times have the states had the threat of the withholding of Federal dollars used as a club to compel them to comply?

Similarly, on an individual level, the act of accepting government money necessarily constrains one's freedom and autonomy and makes one beholden to the whim of a government servant.  But worse than the physical slavery endemic to accepting government assistance, is the deleterious effect of such 'assistance' government on the human spirit. For there is such a thing as the slavery of dependency, a slavery exhibited by a human mind that cannot conceive of helping itself.  My friend Difster illustrates the stark contrast in behaviors between a people enslaved to government, institutionalized to the handcuffs and a people that is spiritually free:

Mexico doesn't have much in the way of welfare or unemployment insurance. When people are out of work or need to supplement their income, they hit the streets.

I can drive around Culiacan (the capital city of the Mexican state of Sinaloa) and buy flowers, oranges, nopales (cactus), toys, tomatoes, bread, newspapers, a jillion different trinkets, watch silver painted fire jugglers (in the evening) etc. without ever getting out of my car.

Aside from that, you'll see pickup trucks full of produce at the side of the road selling everything from DVDs (pirated of course) to produce, to toys and so on.

The salient point is, they don't sit around waiting for someone to hand them a check, they get out on the street and do something. They might not make much, but they do it.

Recently we celebrated July 4th. I made the point that real independence starts from within the bony confines of each of our skulls. If we wait for government to do something for us, if we ask for government's by-your-leave to buy sell and trade, we condition our minds to the slavery of indolence.

Real freedom encompasses the will to care for yourself and yours, as well as the ability or permission to do so.

PS - the scene that Difster describes is what a real free market looks like, not the corporatist mixed-markets ones that we Americans are accustomed to.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Tuesday Tomfoolery

Saw the below cartoon linked from Vox's site, thought that many of my readers here (those that don't also peruse VD's place, that is) would enjoy it as well:




Click here to see the remaining two panes located at the True Freethinker blog.

Now in fairness, the cartoon, while describing the boorish behavior and smug superior attitude common to so-called 'free thinker' atheists, is far from a balanced portrayal of them.  We would already know which character in these panels is the antagonist without having to read any text or watch them in action. For starters, note the manner of dress...tee shirt with text screened on it versus a conservative polo shirt.  In a world where first impressions count and the manner of one's dress suggests much about a person's attitude, self-respect, and respect for others, this is a significant signal. The clothes truly do make the man.

Second, note the grooming. Short conservative hairstyle versus a bearded mullet.  Also a clue into a person's attitudes and values.

Third, we see how the religious character is fit and trim and even muscular, while the atheist/free-thinker character is shabby and very much overweight. A third clue into someone's attitudes, values, good breeding (or not), and self-control.  That is not to say that religious folk are more lithe than the irreligious, far from it.  Rather, being ill kept, too casually dressed, and overweight sends negative signals about oneself. And these signals are used in this cartoon to portray the boorish atheist in a very poor light.

Thus we have the initial impression trifecta--the religious character is tidy and well put together in a socially respectful manner indicative of good breeding and manners, while the atheist one is a disrespectful slob. From the first panel, via this framing, the artist attempts to predispose our minds to think more highly of the religious character and dislike and even distrust the shabby, sloppy atheistic one before a single word is uttered. Of course, the cartoon does not disappoint, as the visual signalling we glean from the quick look at the images is more than confirmed by the noxious and aggressive acts of the atheist character.

Also, in fairness, anecdotally, I must say I have never been personally accosted anywhere close to this by an atheist. In fact, in my life, I have had my faith challenged by an atheist only once, and that was via low-wattage Flying Spaghetti Monster pamphleteering. Perhaps this is because I don't witness much, except to my children, given as I am to a more Calvinist bent about salvation.  Instead, in my limited experience, the violence that atheists employ against the faithful is more of the passive-aggressive type...Flying Spaghetti Monster leaflets in offices, Darwin fish stickers on cars, lawsuits against the National Day of Prayer and against the military services for a climate of 'religious intolerance', whatever that is, lawsuits against governmental bodies for permitting Christian religious symbols on public land, and negative portrayals of Christians by Hollywood-produced media.

But the one thing that does certainly ring true about this cartoon is the smug and superior attitude that those of faith are deluded and the secular are more enlightened due to their belief in the god Science. That and their thin skin.

Monday, July 12, 2010

The Pretty Lie of AIDS

I am old enough to remember when AIDS made its first foray into the public consciousness in the early 1980s. It was then, much as it is now, a disease largely associated with the male homosexual community, a disease that rapidly jumped to the IV drug user set, and afflicts hetero women who engage in high-risk sex to a lesser degree.

Yet the advent of AIDS was accompanied by a massive public-relations campaign by the pink lobby that continues to this day with one goal in mind: to override sensible public and individual reaction to a disease spread primarily by buggery and by needle-sharing, both high-risk behaviors chosen by risk-seeking individuals. The sensible and moral choice would be to refrain from butt sex, needle-sharing, and generalized promiscuity; however, the homosexual lobby's public opinion- and legislation-shaping campaign offered another solution: condone and condoms.

The latter solution has had only modest success in the USA--most of the drop in US AIDS cases is attributed instead to the availability of antiretroviral drugs rather than condom use--yet condoms are still being heavily promoted domestically as well as overseas, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, which has suffered terribly from AIDS due to permissive cultural attitudes toward polyamory and understandable aversion to wearing a latex helmet during intercourse.

The former solution, however, has had rousing success. To suggest that, if one wishes to avoid AIDS, one should not engage in high-risk sex, particularly homosexual sex, and therefore sidestep the disease entirely, is to be guilty of 'homophobia', a sin nearly on par with racism. To speak out against homosexuality is to engage in hate speech in many places, most recently in Illinois as a professor was fired a couple of weeks ago for accurately presenting the RCC's position on homosexuality. The media polices statements criticizing homosexuality, the homosexual lifestyle, or the homosexual agenda with zeal, forcing those who accurately present the Word or who want to call attention to the subversive goals of the pink lobby in general to scramble for cover. The left's biggest weapon against social cons is sticks-and-stones name calling--to object is to be a bigot, a homophobe--and (shame on the social cons) name calling has been very successful.

Hate speech? Or speaking Truth to power?

The end result is that self-destructive and harmful behavior--high risk sex with multiple partners--is condoned, even promoted, while the ameliorative advice of those who know/act wiser is suppressed and its utterers persecuted.  Even more perversely, the mollycoddling of this disease and those who transmit it has permitted the disease to escape into the hetero community, thus making the disease a hetero one as well.  The rare exception to the success of the pink lobby is in Uganda; in this isolated case, their efforts to legitimize their high behavior (and undermine one man-one woman marriage) failed, and the country passed a law making homosexuality a capital crime. While the homosexual lobby and their media allies holler about the travesty of this law, I have but to note that homosexuality is already a capital crime for all intents and purposes in nature, and were it not for antiretroviral technology, it would remain so.

So: putting aside the issue of the death penalty for homosexuality, such a law, in its own way, is one of the rare temporal successes of  Christian love over secular hate in modern government, for it delivers the one-two punch of encouraging Ugandans to avoid engaging in buggery, a major risk factor for acquiring AIDS, while also further insulating Ugandan society against the harmful social effects of a permissive attitude towards homosexuality.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Tuesday Tomfoolery

Porn--both the male and the female varieties--sure has a lot to answer for.



And I note Twilight:Eclipse opened to a $173M gross this weekend. Sure was a lot of girls and mature women getting their dose of socially approved porn...

HT: Ferdinand Bardamu

Monday, July 5, 2010

Let Freedom Ring

Yesterday was the 4th of July, where Americans the continent over celebrated that fateful day in Philadelphia in 1776. Ironically, as Vox has noted, they celebrated their so-called freedom with government-regulated pyrotechnics while their so-called elected representatives pass bill after bill, trampling the clearly stated contrary opinions of the American people. So much for suffrage giving the people a voice in their government, or even "taxation without representation", as SteveK notes, "we just don't have representation, period".

Clearly we have an issue with liberty and freedom in our world today. Recently I opined in the comments section of this post that true liberty may very well more likely be found in a Christian authoritarian state than in a secular quasi-democratic state. For certain, both are theocracies: the former ruled by the laws of Yahweh, the latter ruled by the god of secular humanism. In the former, objective morality rules the day, in the latter, the people suffer under the shifting sands of a relative morality, a fungible morality contingent upon time and place and upon the will to power of the faction presently king of the mountain. In the former, Yahweh is worshipped, in the latter, Leviathan is. We have traded the republican form of government established by the Founders for a popery with the State as the godhead. We did so, not because of a conscious decision, but by default, as our moral fiber disintegrated.

Like de Tocqueville and millions before me, I have come to conclude that
Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith...the Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other
Unfortunately, what de Tocqueville observed was merely the cultural residue of a once-faithful people that had not fully absorbed the teachings of the Enlightenment. For when man dethroned God, created an idol--secular humanism--and erected that idol in His place, it was only a matter of time before secular humanism finished the job of chasing God from the minds of man. For we know that all gods are jealous gods, that one cannot serve both Yahweh and Mammon, and one or the other has to go. The West, true to the roots of the Enlightenment, chose Mammon, and Reason--ever Luther's pretty whore of the devil--over faith.

Thus I look around and see a people whose lack of faith causes them to suffer from bondage when they need not. And it's not just the temporal bondages of chilimony-serfdom, the slavery of taxation without representation, a government that rules rather than serves, that bedevil us. It is also the bondage of immorality, a people suffering the just desserts of selfish acts, whether they be committed out of sheer ignorance, such as the entire edifice of romance and romantic love, or deliberately, through state-sponsored theft and infanticide for personal convenience. All these bondages create needless misery and suffering.

So I wonder what would be more free: an autocratic government where each official, as a criteria of service, is a believing Christian, or a secular humanist mercantilist state, where the banksters and moneychangers extract what they can from the masses with Ponzi schemes and usury and pacify those masses with bread, circuses, and bullets? To be sure, I think the American Experiment, Constitutional republicanism, is a failure, for the people no longer conduct themselves by Biblical principles but by narrow self-interest. At best the American Experiment was a life-limited phenomenon--limited to a people with the self-control imparted by faith, the self-control required to self-govern. And in our failure to conduct ourselves in this manner, we not only doom any effort at Constitutional republicanism but also ourselves slaves to our human nature and suffer accordingly.

Thus I ruminated yesterday on what the Bible has to say about freedom, and where should start if we want to be free, not just in our persons, but in our minds as well. For if we want freedom in the physical, we first need to acquire attitudes that make us free in our habits, hearts, and minds. Three passages in particular bear on this question, and I shall highlight them below.

#1. John 8:32 and 34:
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free...everyone who sins is a slave to sin.

In other words, when we walk the path that God intends for us to walk, we shall be free of the bondage that comes with misdeeds. It follows furthermore that if we collectively act in a Biblical manner, and our leaders/rulers do as well, then the people will rejoice. Instead, the modern West has demonstrated that a pluralistic democracy devoid of Christian principle and instead a servant of man's avarice is not capable of stable self-governance.

#2. 2 Cor 3:16-18:
But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory

This passage directly attacks the idols we have erected, be they material goods, the democratic process, politicians, the god-state, or our selves. All keep us enslaved.

#3. Gal 5:1:
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery

Once free, let us not backslide into slavery once again. We have done this; we were once free, but now are not and are becoming increasingly less so each and every day.

I am mindful of history when I write this post, and also about how the Christian West suffered under the yoke of popery for a millennia. I am not advocating the installment of another ruler to whom is ascribed divine attributes and who would engage in blatant simonism...the quasi divine President we have presently is more than enough for me. That said, I am merely stating what to me is blazingly obvious: a country with Christian leadership over an equally Christian population would be a place where we would live and breathe the sort of freedom we haven't had in this country in over 150 years. Not only freedom to do what one wished (constrained by a self-control informed by faith as true freedom must be), but freedom from the effects of the aggregated misbehavior of others.

Of course to do so would require a wholesale transformation of the American population away from the church of liberalism. Short of Divine Intervention, I don't see that happening. Perhaps it will be in His wisdom to do so. Perhaps not. But I yearn for the freedom that comes from my neighbors as well as myself being freed from the yoke of slavery.

Sunday, July 4, 2010

In Pictures: Sluice Boxes State Park, Montana

Went on a business trip / vacation to Montana recently, and took some time to enjoy God's creation by trail running 9 miles cross-country through the Sluice Boxes State Park, just north of Monarch and Showdown ski resort. Here are some pictures that I took with my camera phone...hope you enjoy the views as much as I did.

First, here is a picture of the obstacles crossing the trail; would you believe there is a trail under this?


More trail. This one was a ledge where the right-hand side dropped about 300 feet:


From the rim of the canyon, a few pix:





Back on the trail again, where the trail merges with an abandoned railroad grade



Also, you may note that the river seems kinda high...it was...Belt Creek crested two days later and flooded out a bunch of people's homes:


Soon the trail became impassable...too many deadfalls and obstacles...so make my way overland to a ranch road and ran back to the park entrance. Here is a view from the road:


I hope you enjoyed the pictures. As for myself, it was a great 9 mile run/scramble that left me scratched, bruised, and thoroughly muddy from a few creek crossings.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Sign the 'Rape Shield' Petition

...for those who find themselves on the receiving end of a FRA...false rape accusation.

Rape is the one crime where, in an effort to 'get accusers to come forward', our laws guarantee their anonymity. In practice, this tilt in favor of the accuser, an anomaly in a legal system supposedly designed to protect the rights of those accused from the impressive array of resources of the state, rejects English common law tradition for that of Napoleon...where the accused must prove his innocence while his reputation is but a pile of ashes.

Click here to do the right thing and extend the rape shield to cover those accused as well as the accuser...so that both may enjoy protection from the judgement of those predisposed to pre-judge guilt before a trial.

HT: FRS

Quote of the Day

Feminism is the theory and practice of prioritizing women's interests ahead of those of men and children, and of institutionalizing that prioritization.

Author: a commenter who calls himself "Acksiom", opining over at Hestia's blog The Coming Night, on this post which appears to be garnering a bit o' interest in feminazi circles.